Tom Suarez has, on the basis of research in the Government’s
archive written a book documenting the terrorist beginnings of the Israeli state. I have yet to read and review the book but by
all accounts it is an impeccably documented book.

We can always expect the Daily Mail, the paper that supported Hitler in the 1930's, to be around when it comes to suppressing free speech

What is also clear is that the research in this book, which
is based on over 400 documents from the government’s own archives is
unacceptable to the Zionist lobby in this country. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, an
overtly Zionist body, which calls itself the representative body of Jews in
this country has done its best to stop its author Tom Suarez speaking to meetings
about his findings.

The Board of Deputies incidentally is elected by
nobody. It is based on synagogue
membership. It doesn’t represent Britain’s
secular Jews, about half of all British Jews, the most cultured and educated
section of British Jews but narrow minded businessmen and middle class Zionist
bigots. Many of the synagogues elect
their representatives on an all male electorate. Others are simply rotten boroughs where there
is no election.

Orwell summed up the language of the Prevent Strategy many years ago

On the basis of the squeals of Britain’s Israel lobby,
which doesn’t want the truth about Israel to be known, a campaign has been
mounted to stop Tom Suarez speaking. One
wonders what they have to fear?

What is worse is that this is being done under the cover
of the government’s Prevent programme.
Prevent was introduced on a mandatory basis under the government’s
Counter Terrorism & Security Act 2015.
Purportedly designed to prevent terrorism it operated on the theory that
people become terrorists because they are ‘radicalised’. This absurd theory misses out small things
like the fact that people became terrorists because the government in alliance
with the United States went and bombed the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan killing
over 1 million people. Some people wrongly
believed that the attack on these countries was because they were Muslim.

The Prevent strategy assumes that people become ‘radicalised’
on the basis of ‘extremist’ political views.
What are ‘extremist’ views?
Anything which doesn’t subscribe to ‘British values’. Presumably Marxism, subversion, going on
strike even, can in certain circumstances be held to be anti-British. Under this all encompassing rubric, the government
has forced universities to vet speakers for public meetings because their young
audiences may be susceptible to being unduly influenced by ideas which are not
normative and conservative.
Anti-imperialist ideas, Palestine solidarity and anything else outside the
mainstream can be considered ‘extremist’ and thus akin to terrorism. This is the climate we are dealing with. That is also why we need to fight back.

Suarez’s book attacks Israel as a terrorist state. It is therefore outside the political mainstream. It therefore gives a license to pathetic pipsqueaks
like Portsmouth’s Prevent Officer Charlie
Pericleous to go around trying to close political meetings they don’t
like.

Of course this doesn’t excuse in any way the cowardly owners
of venues – whether it is the Quaker’s Meeting House in Cambridge which
cancelled a talk by Suarez or the Friendship Centre in Portsmouth. A similar meeting at the Friends Meeting
House in Brighton which I spoke at with Jackie Walker was the subject of similar
attempts to stop the meeting by the Board of Deputies. Fortunately in our case the Friends had a
stiffer backbone than their counterparts in Cambridge. In Nottingham another meeting by Jackie and
myself also had to be moved at the last minute.

We are facing a concerted attack by the
Conservative government and the Israel/Zionist lobby in this country on Free
Speech. It needs a robust campaign in
response because this is a defence of the very essence of freedom and basic
democratic liberties.

Britain’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign has kept its head
down and done virtually nothing in response to this attack on the rights of Palestine
supporters and anti-Zionists. At the
moment PSC is incapable of punching its way out of a paper bag, still less mounting
a political fightback against government and state attacks. It even half-welcomed the government’s new International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism until I threw a fit.

Ben Jamal’s advice to Portsmouth PSC is extremely
inadequate. What is needed are not
apologies after the event by Council bureaucrats but a determined campaign to
ensure that no Council anywhere or any University
tries to ban speakers that the
Establishment in this country doesn’t like.
Universities are under a legal obligation to defend free speech. Councils have to be made to if necessary.

We should be tackling head on this whole nonsense of ‘extremism’. The suffragettes in their day were also
considered ‘extremists’. All fighters
for freedom, from Nelson Mandella to Emily Davidson were extremists. The biggest danger to freedom comes from ‘moderate’
war mongers like Tony Blair and Theresa May.

The Israel Apartheid Week in British universities came
under severe attack in January. One University,
the University of Central Lancashire cancelled it outright. Others such as Exeter and University College
London put restrictions on it.

We need a nationwide campaign against the attacks on free
speech. At the moment there is a Free
Speech on Israel campaign but it is very weak.
What we need is to organise a nation campaign in defence of our
democratic rights involving not just Palestine supporters but civil liberties
supporters and anti-racist campaigners.

Below is a description of events at Portsmouth by one of
the organisers.

You might also like to send an email to Portsmouth Council's Prevent Officer Charlie Pericleous who can be contacted at: Charlie.pericleous@portsmouthcc.gov.ukand ask if he sees as his main duty closing down democratic meetings.

Tony Greenstein

How Prevent and the Zionists
Attempted to Stop Tom Suarez Speaking in Portsmouth

One month ago
we booked a venue in Portsmouth, the Friendship Centre, for the evening of
Thursday 27 April for an event open to the public. On the Thursday
morning we were told our booking had been cancelled 'because of the nature of the speaker', Tom Suarez. We
quickly booked a new venue, the Buckland Community Centre, only to be told an
hour or two later that that booking was cancelled too. The manager said
she had received a call recommending cancellation, but would not say from whom
or give the reason. She said that the City Council’s legal team had
insisted on cancellation. Again she
refused to give the alleged reason or legal basis for the cancellation. She did
say to our Chair, Zuber Hatia, that the Council would not allow the meeting to
take place in any Community Centre or Church Hall.

The meeting
finally went ahead in a pub in Havant, 6 miles away, to a much smaller audience
than would normally have been expected. Tom was naturally disappointed , but
said several times that he was glad we hadn't cancelled.

The meeting
was held to hear Tom Suarez speak about his recently published book, ‘The State
of Terror, how terrorism created modern Israel', a book based largely on the
evidence of 436 documents in Britain’s national archives. Allowing the meeting
to go ahead in the normal way, with a wider audience, would have allowed more
people to make up their own minds about what Tom Suarez had to say, question
him about his sources and their interpretation and then read the book if they
wanted to go deeper.

The Daily
Mail got hold of the story & started pestering the MP for Portsmouth S,
Flick Drummond. In Flick's own words:

'I was contacted by
someone informing me that the Daily Mail was going to write a story about Mr
Suarez visiting Portsmouth and what did I think. I did not respond to the Daily
Mail at first but just let the police know as I know that there was a riot at
the LSE and a fuss in Parliament and I didn't want a big fuss in
Portsmouth.

The Daily Mail continued
to ring my office and email me so I just told them I had told the police and
hoped that was the end of it.

They have misrepresented
me and I have no view on Mr Suarez speaking anywhere......

My role has been blown
out of all proportion and I assume it is because it makes a better story in the
press. I was not seeking to stop the meeting but was concerned about other
organisations being stirred up to protest.'

Flick
has personally apologised to me no less than five times. Obviously she would
have been better not talking to a newspaper that most sensible people avoid
like the plague. Perhaps, however, she was put up to it by Conservative Central
Office, who saw an opportunity to create an anti-Corbyn scandal. 'Jeremy
Corbyn charity hosts anti-Semitic speaker', trumpeted the Mail.

So who was
the main villain of the piece? It appears to have been Charlie Pericleous, Portsmouth's smooth-talking, oh-so-charming
Prevent Officer. The meeting was advertised a month in advance, so Pericleous
had a whole month in which to take any action he deemed necessary. Instead he chose to alert the Friendship
Centre on the very day of the meeting that 'special
security measures were necessary in view of the nature of the speaker'. The
manager was spooked by this & immediately cancelled.

I had a long
& frustrating telephone conversation with him & after a lot of
weaselling around he finally admitted that he had rung Ruba Begum at Friendship
House on Thursday morning to ask if she had 'appropriate
security arrangements in place'.

When I asked,
'Why did you do that?' he said, 'Because of the controversial nature of the
speaker.'

'Many of our speakers are
controversial. We are a campaign, on a controversial issue. Do you think we are
Gardeners' Question Time? Why didn't you ring me first, I could have reassured
you that there was no need for security, we have never had any incidents in all
the years we've been running meetings?'

'I didn't have your contact
details.'

'We're not a secret group, you could
easily have obtained them.'

He could of
course have easily obtained them from MS Begum, but he chose not to.

He agreed to
meet us. Ben Jamal had given us some advice on the matter, as follows.

'I
think your ask at the meeting should be that the council puts out a clear
statement along the following lines: That they did not seek the cancellation of
the meeting; that they did not regard Tom as someone who should not be allowed
to speak; that there is no bar on his speaking in any venue in Portsmouth; that
they are pleased to have met with PSC to have clarified issues – If there has
been any suggestion about cancellation of future PSC meetings then you may need
to also get them to address that – You may need to allow them to say by way of
explanation that they had been liaising with the venues to ensure that there
were no security issues - If you want to push it they might want to acknowledge
that they should have contacted PSC directly and apologise for not doing so. I
would give as a reason for needing a statement that this has generated a huge
amount of publicity which is potentially damaging and that you have been
informed by one of the venues that they understood that the meeting should be
cancelled on council advice so there is a need to address the confusion that
has emerged.'

When five of
us (including Tom Suarez himself) met Charlie Pericleous a few days later, on
May 9th, the meeting was extremely unsatisfactory. It was, as Tom Suarez descibed it, 'an exercise in obfuscation'.

He started
off by saying he had received abusive letters from PSC. I said, 'I haven't corresponded with you, only
spoken over the phone.' 'No, it wasn't you.' 'Who was it then? I haven't
authorised anyone to write to you, & I haven't given anyone your email
address, because I don't have it.' 'No, they were letters sent thro' the post'.
[Who writes postal letters nowadays?] 'I've
got them here,' [pulls out packet]. 'I'd
like to see them. If people are writing abusive letters in the name of PSC, I'd
like to see them, because I need to deal with it.' [Rummages in packet]. 'One woman was called Tracey.' Tracey who?' 'Oh, actually I don't seem to have any of them here after all.'
!!!!

He
point-blank refused to answer any questions we asked. 'I'm not going to do that. I'm here to explain how the system works.'
He then proceeded to ramble on for a long time, going round & round in
circles & endlessly repeating the same tired meaningless phrases. Instead
of listening to our concerns, he started
a long lecture about how wonderful Prevent was & how many lives he was
saving. Needless to say he provided no evidence of this.

He refused to
consider any of the 'asks' suggested by Ben Jamal. Charlie would not be specific about who had told
him to intervene in PSDPSC’s bookings at Friendship House and the Buckland
Community Centre. He said his intervention had been the outcome of
internal staff processes, but who or what had prompted their interest in the
meeting he would not say. The reason he gave for advising cancellation
was lack of time to assess risks or make arrangements to deal with them:
Friendship House had not been told who the speaker was or the subject of the
talk.

True, PSDPSC had not got round to
supplying the venue with the usual publicity leaflet, but when the manager had
contacted us a few days before the event she made no mention of this, only
wanting to know what seating layout we wanted. Over the last ten years we
have arranged about 80 meetings in Portsmouth, most of them on Council property
and on no previous occasion have the venues shown any interest in the identity
of speakers or what they would talk about. Booking forms, if any, would
typically just have a space for “Description of the booking”. Nor had the
Council ever issued any general instructions about what information was needed
for bookings or mentioned any need to provide it for riskassessment purposes. PSDPSC meetings have never given
rise to any disturbance or posed any risk whatsoever of it occurring.

So when Charlie told us that this
was the first public meeting that the City Council had got cancelled in the
last ten years his excuse of insufficient time for risk assessment seemed as implausible
as everything else he said.

Charlie himself did seem a tad
embarrassed over the whole affair, giving no answer when we pointed out that he
had scored an own goal as far as his Prevent programme goes, alienating the
Muslim community even more. He also failed to answer when Tom asked if the
Jewish Board of Deputies was in any way involved. He did tell us that Tom
Suarez was not considered an extreme speaker and assured us that there
would be no obstacles raised if we arranged a future event with Tom in
Portsmouth. We shall see. He refused to agree to the Council
issuing a public statement along the lines advised by Ben Jamal at PSC HQ, but
promised that some statement by the Council would be forthcoming. As of yet
(May 15th) there has been no sign of this statement.

Shortly after
the cancelled meeting on Apr 27th, Council employee Ms Megan Barnard took it on
herself to write to Tom Suarez's partner, Ms Nancy Elan:

Dear
Nancy,

Thank you for your email....The council fully supports free speech, but council
officers have to bear in mind the impact on the community of events where
inflammatory statements could possibly be made. It's best if venues have time
to prepare for such an impact and think about how to manage risks. As
Friendship House had not been told the identity of the speaker, council
officers advised them that the event might be controversial. They made their
own decision to cancel.

A
charity that runs a council-owned community centre was then approached to host
the talk. Given the short notice there was not enough time to assess the
possible impact and put any measures in place to deal with any risks, so
council officers advised it would be best for them not to go ahead.

Mr
Suarez is not banned from speaking at council venues, but if a booking is made,
the venue would need enough time to think about the possible impact of a
potentially controversial event and ensure it can go ahead safely.....

Kind
regards,

Meg

Megan Barnard

Leader's Programme
Manager
Executive Support Team

Community and
Communication

Portsmouth City Council

I replied to Ms Barnard myself on May 6th,
asking her who might be making 'inflammatory statements'. I pointed out that it
looked from the letter as though she thought Suarez might do so, & that
this was insulting & possibly libellous. I also asked her clarify what
'risks' there could possibly be. Her reply was to say that she had forwarded
the email to her line Manager, Louise Wilders, Director of Community and
Communication. Ms Wilders has so far failed to offer any clarification, sending
one email which entirely failed to address the questions, & ignoring two
further emails.

PSDPSC is not letting this
lie. We are putting in a Freedom of Information request for all emails,
notes, minutes, reports and correspondence related to the cancellation of the
meeting.